Should all European countries give up nuclear weapons?

Should Europe be a “nuclear-free zone”? Other continents have managed it, including Latin America and Africa (with South Africa being the only country to have successfully built a nuclear bomb before scrapping their arsenal completely). Despite domestic political grumbles, the United Kingdom and France both remain nuclear powers, whilst Belgium, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands all participate in the NATO policy of nuclear weapons sharing with the United States.

But, with the end of the Cold War, is there still a reason for European states to cling to their thermonuclear toys? Or do worsening relations with Russia (not to mention North Korea joining the nuclear club, and Iran on its way) provide reason enough to retain a nuclear deterrence?

One of our commenters, Alex from Germany, said he would like to see his country withdraw from NATO and build its own nuclear arsenal. He hopes the future Germany might resemble a nuclear-armed “big Switzerland, independent and neutral” . It’s an unconventional (and unlikely) vision, to be sure, but does anybody really know what the future holds for nuclear weapons in a post-Cold War order?

What will the role of nuclear weapons be in the future? How is NATO going to defend against nuclear arms? [And] how far can a nuclear threat influence major crisis (like the crisis in the Ukraine right now) and limit the possibilities of conventional warfare today?

We also had the chance to put the same question to Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, former NATO Secretary General (2004-2009). What did he think the future held for nuclear weapons?

With the end of the Cold War, is there still a reason for European states to have nuclear weapons? What will the role of nuclear weapons be in the future? And should Europe be a “nuclear-free zone”? Let us know your thoughts and comments in the form below, and we’ll take them to policy-makers and experts for their reactions.

No country which has developed nuclear weapons has been attacked on its own soil since developing nuclear weapons. The only exception to that are India and Kashmir but that has only been limited to Kashmir, whose territory between those two is disputed. Why on Earth would Europe want to get rid of the biggest and best deterrent for war?

Because it isn’t a deterrent. For each country that aquires a nuclear arsenal, all we do is escalate the return of the same cold war era that we up till now have been trying to move away from.
In the end it doesn’t really matter who launches a nuke first or last. If we deploy such weapons once today, anyone else that has them is sure to follow, why? Because several of these countries are allieds bound to retaliate if their allied is attacked.

And the second thing we know is that all of this will just bring about several things: death, destruction, nuclear winters and soon enough, a dead planet devoid of life.

The only real way to make peace is for all countries to set aside their differences and truly work together. Dismantling ALL nuclear weapons should be the first step.

No. Only specific countries shall be allowed nuke weapons. The most rich of course, because they are expensive and they need to protect themselves from poorer countries, which by their nature will become even more poor.

Yes! If they cannot be used, and they cannot be used by Europeans, then please explain the waste of our money on purchasing them? And, who are we purchasing them from?

In the UK we are once again buying Trident from the USA at a cost that would take the head off anyone with reason. First of all, we don’t know if it works. Secondly, we cannot use it without US approval. They hold the key to it firing. Which means if the war we are going to is against them, or, one of their satellites it cannot be used. We can only use it with their good wishes and assistance. What a joke, and we are paying them through the nose for this. Can anyone ready this accept that situation is sane?

Why nuclear weapons? Deterrence. Against whom? Against mortal enemies who may be able to overpower a concerned state practicing the deterrence doctrine. Who is a mortal enemy? In terms of states here – can be your cousin tomorrow. This means France may need nuclear weapons to deter a Spain of tomorrow. But do they mean something? For functional states, they do. For ‘ostensible’ & failed states – the risks become global.

Nuclear weapons may be tools of war, but combined in a global network they can be used as last resort space demolishers. Who knows if we could use nuclear warfare to tear apart a slightly big rock than that which hit Russia recently?

the short answer is of course – No. Look what happened to Ukraine. But the long answer is that nuclear weapons are not the whole answer as they cannot be used for any low level encounters.

For example it makes no sense to have a nuclear force to protect an eastern European country with a Russian minority which Moscow chooses to arm and use its agents to create a civil war.

What is needed to liberate Eastern Ukraine and to secure Eastern European states is a strong conventional force, well led and well trained.

Finally Europe must be equipped for an underground war – whether with Russian agents or Islamists extremists – how to achieve that – how to root out enemy agents without a McCarthyite witch hunt – how to protect ourselves against fanatics who play by no book of rules – and how to do so without compromising our own liberties – those are the big questions for debate.

We could start by not letting our own allies sell their souls or their warships to the enemies of the free society.

I think we have allready enought nuclear weapons to destroy the earth twice!… In order to promote peace we should…. first, arrest all the europeans and americans that conspirate to produce wars in third countries for their natural resouces… this is the seed for terrorism… and second, we should do a policy for military training the people by playing PaintBall between population and armies, this makes people of the army to feel closer to civilians and this will prevent any civil war in our territory… (Like in ukrania now) it could be like a sport leage and put in TV…

Nuclear weapons on the territories of (and with the agreement of) European Nato member states remains under command of US Defense. The right question should be : Do want the European States support themselves their common sovereignty by the setting up of a Federal power along the European Defense capabilities (including nuclear deterrence) ?

I do somewhat trust European countries that they wouldn’t go out war at someone in Europe. However, I don’t trust nor Chinese, Russian nor American governments and their interests. I don’t trust anyone giving up their billion dollar weapons and destroying them. I’m not taking anyone’s word for it.

Once again an intresting articel with good questions. I wonder who Wouter is, because I would like to meet him. No I am just joking. Nevertheless, intresting answers from those whom were interviewd.
I believe that WMD’s, in the hands of reasonable states, have been responsible for peace rather than war. However, If mad men come to power, or terrorists get there hands on WMD’s, it would be a disaster. Therefore we sure do need a cooperative program to secure our WMD’s.

Get rid of them and we are at greater threat from other parts of the world that won’t. What happens when a rogue country such as Iran or North Korea develop them but we don’t have them. Nuclear weapons are there to insure we aren’t attacked, other regions of the world that we consider a threat, we pressurize them, not to develop nuclear weapons through various sanctions.

Nutters who can fly planes full of people into buildings full of people would not spare a second thought about using a WMD if they had any. So if they manage to develop one whilst everyone else in the world has abandoned theirs then god help this planet

So young people, but so naive, so ignorant and so arrogant! I’m really shocked!
I suggest to anyone to watch the film “The day after”! All the horror of a nuclear war, is imprinted in the scene where the soldier of a nuclear missile base, says frightened to his colleague after they’ve just pressed the button, “let’s leave this place immediately. We pressed the button… so they did, too!… The war is already over!”

Europe must have a credible nuclear deterrence, otherwise it will be held hostage by other nuclear powers and type of rogue states with nuclear power :Iran, North Korea, etc … I would add to this list of unreliable states : India, China, Pakistan,

Yes only for nuclear energy.
We must go beyond this kind of energy;
While, nuclear weapons, in a world like this, like now, is a weapon that we must (regrettably) keep.
World is not yet ready from a nuclear – weapon-free nations;
Too much menaces.

As I’m able to see, several young commenters, especially from Eastern Europe but not only, would love to push the button to eliminate Russia or China (along with any living creature)!
Extremely humanitarian thought!!! As long as they have in mind, that several Russians or Chinese might also love the same thing!

Wars will be fought. Better not to have nuclear weapons around then. That is largely 60s technology. Would you bet the future of humanity on the reliability of a 1960s technology car? A rusty, old car? With thousands of 24/7 hair trigger alert weapons in thousands of different facilities, human and/or technical failures will eventually lead to a detonation.

The only way to make sure nuclear weapons are not used is by eliminating them.

“The dilemma”: applying the existing “deterrence theory” (mutually assured destruction) has worked during the cold war. Nowadays, the greater danger is suicidal or psychotic opponents and rouge states who are not deterred by anything!
How to deal with this new threat?

There is only one way to give up nuclear weapons: to settle international disputes in peace, sharing our common wealth/poverty or eliminating the ones that constitute “surplus” population. In the former case, nuclear weapons are of no use; in the latter, they can’t be used without threatening the existence of life on earth.

The rational outcome would be that nuclear weapons are useless and shall be abolished by all nations on earth. Therefore, unilateral abolishment would only weaken the possessors of such weapons undermining their diplomatic potential for a full, unconditional abolishment of such weapons of mass destruction all over the world.

Solution: an international agreement (following the pattern of US-USSR agreements of the 1980s) to control and gradually abolish such weapons from around the globe.

Countries that possess such weapons are: the USA, Russia, France, the UK, India, Pakistan, Israel and N.Korea (South Africa abolished them in the 1990s due to a wise political decision by Nelson Mandela). Iran is trying to acquire such weapons but a direct pact with the USA could avert such a development. In all cases, the key is in the minds of peoples around the globe: are we ready to share our common poverty??

George, a correction please: It was “1993 joint Nobel Peace Prize laureate FW De Klerk” & his outgoing government who ordered the dismantling of SA nukes in 1989- “preventing them falling into wrong hands”- before a negotiated settlement was reached with the ANC under Mr. N. Mandela & his later election in 1994 as State President.

Correct: However, Nelson Mandela was against nuclear weapons on ethical grounds. FW De Klerk did the job and got the credit (similar to Gorbachev’s analogous gathering of USSR nuclear weapons to Russia proper, Belarus and Ukraine before the fall of the USSR empire). Both politicians are to be mentioned for their wise, cautious handling of the matter.-

But cooperation went even further when Russia’s Yeltsin/ Rosatom & US/Clinton signed a deal in 1993 called “Megatons to Megawatts” to sell/convert ~20,000 Russian nuclear warheads to the US to fuel US nuclear power plants the past 20 years!

To be ‘for’ nuclear weapons of any kind is the deranged thinking of madmen. This documentary deals with the underlying issues we rarely discuss or even know about. The opening film lasts just a couple of minutes.

Does it occur to you people who love the idea of nuclear weapons that the crazed leaders of Israel have hundreds of these weapons today, which is why the world denies what they are dong today in Gaza. This lunacy used against the poverty stricken area of Gaza could be any region of the world they decide doesn’t suit their and US modus operanadi. Israel is armed by the USA and simply a cover for that countries military expansion. What they are doing is one step away from Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

And yet you can think,if they would dare to do this if the other side had nuclears?
As i always said.The strong don t really need nulears.They r strong.They could just beat their enemy without it.Well if you know you re weak,nuclears cauld be usefull,if you know you can t compete in conventional aspects.I call it the “make em pay” doctrine

When you say ”should European countries give up nuclear weapons? ” do you mean remove USA nuclear missiles (sited in Belgium , Germany , Italy ) or just European countries that have them . If its the later we are only talking of France and UK . It will have to be a unilateral disarmament agreement worldwide before the UK goes down that road .

The only smart move that Ukraine had ever done in its history was its nuclear disarmament
don’t forget that Ukraine is in economic collapse since then (more than 20 years)
so it couldn’t spare extra cash for maintaining a nuclear arsenal or worst they could sell to the highest bitter

Why does Europe undermines the very existence? Why does Europe secretly killed 200,000,000 children? Why Europe is stealing trillions of euros every day out of 170 nations on the planet? Why Europe support rape of childs for suporte national vomiting reality shows ? Europe is now officially the biggest cold-blooded, vomiting, a mass murderer in the history of mankind. Why does Europe behaves political prisoners? Why Europe wants to go by strategies which can kill more than three quarters of humanity or exterminate all of Europe with nuclear weapons.

I think that the EU should have control over the nuclear arsenals of the UK and France, and of course of any other member states’ nuclear weapons arsenal if they choose to build one. I as a german citizen would accept the acquisition of nuclear arms by my country, though only on submarines and as I said under EU control. Such control for me means in detail, control by the European Parliament, elected by EU citizens, with a veto right for each of the member states. Such control should also extend towards other weapons of mass destruction, like chemical, biological or incendiary weapons. The latter is officially not a WMD, but in my opinion it is. I think that Europe should not be free of nuclear weapons for I believe it to be unfeasible from a geopolitical point of view, since the EU and other european countries, are located between Russia and the USA, with an unstable southern and southwestern neighborhood. I also believe that the US arsenal should be removed from the continent and that Europe, meaning the EU and its member states should act with more independence from the USA. The removal of US arms would be one step towards such independence.

You guys should realize that there are big and small ,strong and weak countries.In a world withour nuclears,the big would be still able to let s “fuck up” the weak,so those weak countries would just not win anything and only lose something,when they give up nuclears.What advantage would north korea have from giving up it s nuclear.They r probably the only reason why there ain t yanks marshing trough pyongyang yet.The US can still beet anyone,with or without nuclears.Well the likes of north korea are screwed without em^^

No, we have a important international role and there is important crisis around of Europe. we dont’s must certainly put to make a nuclear arms race, but even France and Britain shouldn’t give up those who have.
A ban of nuclear weapon can be very effective only if is it worldwide.

I think existence of nuclear weapons is good but it has to be under control of democracies . People are scared and not interesting to start a war . Nuclear war no side can win and there is no interest to start a war.

If and only of everyone else does it too!
The EU should work hard on the world wide elimination of nuclear weapons.
This includes all the possible terrorist/criminal organizations that have laied their hands on nuclear weapons and/or its “how to make one” plans.
Plenty of work here for all the politicians in Brussels and elsewhere.

Well the question is kinda unnecessary. Well some countries within Europe already have WMDs. Others like Germany for example don’t have them regulary but in case of emergency they can use american WMDs which are in Germany on the one hand on the other hand we all are members of NATO and therefore we have Article 5…

You have to be mad to ask this right now… :-)) Take example of what happened to Ukraine since they renounced to nuclear arsenal located on their territory. Do you believe that Russia would have proceeded the same way if Ukraine would have had at least just one atomic bomb…?

Definitely not. Ukraine gave up nukes after they listened to the guarantees offered by the world’s superpowers and look where it got them. Giving up nukes by European countries would simply mean taking a back seat in the world’s balance of power and opening the door wide open for Russia to nuclear blackmail the EU.

Not with an armed, militaristic Russia, right at its doorstep! No, no, no! Europe, should only surrender its nukes, when US surrenders theirs, i am saying US, because, US will be the last country to do so, assuming, someday, we will live in a world free of nukes, where, China and Russia, accept, to fully destroy their wespons, until then, sorry, but no!

I think if the people want to destroy the Planet Earth shall use nuclear war, because I don’t know if the environment of the planet can support another world war, with nuclear weapons. As I think it will be a utopia speak of the destruction of nuclear weapons when there are countries on this planet that can only assert its supremacy by the nuclear weapons possession.

Duh. Nuclear weapons are the symptom of narrow-mindedness from earlier centuries. It is the immediate outcome of thinking in terms of competing nation-states. Nuclear weapons are incompatible with the bottom line fact that we all live on one planet that, according to the laws of thermodynamics, is a closed system in terms of matter. Since we ought to protect the system that allow human life, nuclear weapons make no sense at all since they undermine humanity’s very ability to survive. Its just a question of time before this becomes a matter of fact.

Nope, just look at Ukraine, if it retained it’s nuclear arsenal, Crimea would still be Ukrainian. Today, nuclear weapons are the only 100% guarantee that your sovereignity/state integrity will be protected. Also you really think that the US, Russia, and china would dissarm as well?

Yes, we have to get rid of all nuclear weapons. We have a lot of other weapons we could use if really necessary. Nuclear weapons are the worst invention of the human race. It’s much better to use non-nuclear JDAMS for example with which you can make a lot of damage against military units and buildings

We continued to live in a world where who is more powerful rule in all domains of life. And even in the diplomacy there’s no exceptions. So in these situation the nuclear weapons are needed in order that no other nuclear power can attack the EU… But if all countries eliminate the nuclear arsenal in that case yes there’s no need for them.

i was quite a hardliner against nuclear nukes, but look what happened with ukraine… in a dream world no nukes are necessary, but in the real world politics like russia’s at the moment require to have certain protection. another debate could be if one step towards a common Europe and a European Army could be to lay the nukes in European hands as well as the seat in the UN security council.

Weapons are built for one thing: destruction, and nothing else. Anyone that things otherwise is a laughable idiot. Deterrent it is certainly not. We are the dumbest ass, most childish species on this planet and i am frankly speaking ashamed to be called a part of it. These weapons are not a deterrent, but just another reason why sooner rather than later, we are going to blow ourselves and the entire planet with it, to hell.

Yes. And we should also have a Europe free from drugs, crime and all kinds of violence. Other continents did not manage to be free from nuclear weapons. They simply did not manage to develop and mantain them.

Establishing comparisons with Latin America or Africa it’s not honest. They have no threats – Latin America closest neighbor is 2500 Km across the ocean, and Africa doesn’t have neither the resources nor the know-how.

If no one plans any war then what is the need for them in the first place, defensive reason just not holding up in my opinion, you will never use them to protect yourself from an invasion or I am wrong? ?

Yes, all countries in the world should give up nuclear weapons and there should be strict control. The more weapons we have, the higher the risk that they may be used in a conflict or activated by mistake, disaster or terrorists.

No!!would be suicide!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and slavery….EU must bild a European nuclear force ,EU must build a strategic nuclear force and tactical nuclear force putting together the French and British as well as “the hidden” nuclear weapons” .of other countries and build a credible deterrence for the protection of all European countries. Using the economic and scientific contribution of all member countries of the Union…

No. Their threat is exactly what keeps us safe from the threat a nuclear war is. As long as there are any nuclear weapons in the world, it is mandatory to keep the M.A.D. concept alive and thus our countries -paradoxically- safe.

we will use any nuclear weapon? so … what is the point in producing them? If EU use a nuclear weapon we can say goodbye to europe!…so it is stupid to produce them… (oh wait.. some people gets rich.. but stupidly of course!)